Should America have stronger Gun Control laws Term Paper

Should America have stronger Gun Control laws - Term Paper Example The debate seldom applies to hunter’s rights. However, outlawing handguns outright would affect hunters as well as people that simply wish to protect themselves. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, â€Å"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed† (â€Å"The Constitution†, 2006). This, as were all of the first ten amendments to the Constitution, was added by the Founding Fathers so as to provide a more clear definition of the specific rights guaranteed to Americans. Gun control advocates consider the Second Amendment to be â€Å"obsolete; or is intended solely to guard against suppression of state militias by the central government and therefore restricted in scope by that intent; or does not guarantee a right that is absolute, but one that can be limited by reasonable requirements† (Krouse, 2002). However, they only question the need for people to own firearms that are not primarily designed for sporting purposes such as hunting. Obviously, the right to own arms was of supreme importance to the Founders given that it was listed second only after the freedom of religion and speech was documented in the First Amendment. The Founders knew that by ensuring the right to own arms, citizens would have the ability to protect themselves from that which might endanger their life, liberty or pursuit of happiness. This could include bodily protection from persons and animals or from an oppressive government that threatened the freedoms outlined in the Constitution. â€Å"The Second Amendment reflects the founders’ belief that an armed citizenry, called the ‘general militia’ was a necessary precaution against tyranny by our own government and its army. The idea that government has a constitutional right to disarm the general citizenry is totally foreign to the intent of the Constitution’s framersâ₠¬  (Reynolds & Caruth III, 1992). Attempting to disarm criminals is a great plan in some fairy-tale land but is a fruitless venture in the real world. â€Å"The ratio of people who commit handgun crimes each year to handguns is 1:400; that of handgun homicides to handguns is 1:3,600. Because the ratio of handguns to handgun criminals is so high, the criminals supply would continue with barely an interruption† (Department of Commerce, 1986: 171). The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated (Kopel, 1988). Gun-control advocates argue that handguns serve no purpose except to shoot people. Any hunter will tell you that this is untrue. This underscores the lack of knowledge these advocates possess concerning the activity they denounce. Handguns are bought mainly for reasons of self-defense but nearly 20 percent buy handguns to use for sport-shooting, target practice and about 15 percent buy handguns as collector’s items. Hunters regularly use handguns as a protection against snakes and to hunt game animals (Aagard, 1987: 32). Anti-Thesis The prohibition of guns in an effort to diminish criminal activity is as reasonable solution in much the same way the prohibition of alcohol would diminish the occurrences of driving while intoxicated. The concept that the easy access to firearms has an important impact on the homicide rates in this country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence.